On 10/6/06, Carlos <angus / quovadis.com.ar> wrote:
> Phrogz wrote:
> [...]
> > Now, I would consider it a valid argument to say "Let's not codify a
> > particular interpetation of some syntax that conflicts with another
> > reasonable interpretation, because it will be surprising to a notable
> > percentage of programmers." Would anyone say that they personally have
> > a different expectation for what "a,b += x,y" might mean?
>
> "The same as
>    a,b = a,b + x,y
>   but with a,b evaluated only once"?
>

Well quite, which is a syntax error, obviously, because there are
three rvalues and only two lvalues.

Which kind of demonstrates how the Law of Unintended Consequences can
flummox even the most sickly of synactic sugars.

Martin